high tackle numbers are often characteristic of a terrible defense because they're constantly allowing third down conversions and getting more opportunities to rack up stats. in our case you've got the defensive line making a ridiculous amount of tackles to begin with as well as the low number of snaps allowed limiting chances for guys like luke to get in on stops.

i love it

Seems like our fan base is playing both sides though. We will throw out the "lead the league in tackles as a rookie" and now we are staying high tackle numbers are inflated due to poor defense. Just an observation from this board

Seems like our fan base is playing both sides though. We will throw out the "lead the league in tackles as a rookie" and now we are staying high tackle numbers are inflated due to poor defense. Just an observation from this board

Seems like our fan base is playing both sides though. We will throw out the "lead the league in tackles as a rookie" and now we are staying high tackle numbers are inflated due to poor defense. Just an observation from this board

I'm not gonna comment on Alonso etc. just because of that and since I don't watch him every week it'd be kind of unfair. I was gonna say something about the way we did the same thing when Luke was a rookie though... I think most of us did that because of all the "Luke is overrated, he only piles in on tackles 8 yards downfield" bullcrap his detractors said. It was kind of a thing to help validate him (mostly because he went wild after we let him loose on the starting spot) because he was playing lights out and all over the field.

Tackles can be misleading sometimes, but you could tell Luke was special just by watching him. He was one of those instances where it WASN'T a misleading statistic in the slightest.

high tackle numbers are often characteristic of a terrible defense because they're constantly allowing third down conversions and getting more opportunities to rack up stats. in our case you've got the defensive line making a ridiculous amount of tackles to begin with as well as the low number of snaps allowed limiting chances for guys like luke to get in on stops.

i love it

Case in point...Pat Angerer (spelling?) leading the league in tackles the year Indy won 1 game. No one ever tried to make the argument he was anywhere near the league's best LB, he just had a gazillion opportunities.

Case in point...Pat Angerer (spelling?) leading the league in tackles the year Indy won 1 game. No one ever tried to make the argument he was anywhere near the league's best LB, he just had a gazillion opportunities.

And James Anderson that same year... he was near the top of the list that year solely because our defense was so fuging pathetic.

I'm not gonna comment on Alonso etc. just because of that and since I don't watch him every week it'd be kind of unfair. I was gonna say something about the way we did the same thing when Luke was a rookie though... I think most of us did that because of all the "Luke is overrated, he only piles in on tackles 8 yards downfield" bullcrap his detractors said. It was kind of a thing to help validate him (mostly because he went wild after we let him loose on the starting spot) because he was playing lights out and all over the field.

Tackles can be misleading sometimes, but you could tell Luke was special just by watching him. He was one of those instances where it WASN'T a misleading statistic in the slightest.

You are very right. I just wanted to see if someone could make a logical argument showing the difference lol We all have homer glasses on from time to time but luke is truly special.

I have seen plenty of LB lose their luster when the D-line ballz out. The stats go down, so the play must have gone down. Back in the day, no one watched much football. You had to rely on hearsay, and what you read to learn about other teams. So if the stats suffer, there must be a reason, it is just easier to blame the player than to do that much research.

Glad we live in an age where folks can find video of almost any player to study. Keek may not have the same type numberz, but his overall play is vastly improved. More and more folks are learning that.

And as a result of Keek, TD is now getting some love as well. Hellz, our whole front 7, which is kinda weird as we usually play more of a front 6. But who am I to judge?

Another reason why stats can skew who is a "good" player. Luke is the QB of our defense. Sure, that kid in Buffalo might be tearing it up this year, but that is in part because he has had to stay out on the field more. People grossly underestimate the cerebral part of the game that Luke "tackles." He is as sharp mentally as he is physically. Those two attributes, plus the studs up front, forces teams off the field more quickly. Boom! Go Panthers!

Luke is the man. But I think it's funny that last year we would have scoffed at this argument coming from Wagner and other LBs. Either way, the down tackle totals are definitely a good sign.

Seems like our fan base is playing both sides though. We will throw out the "lead the league in tackles as a rookie" and now we are staying high tackle numbers are inflated due to poor defense. Just an observation from this board

I don't think Alonso's stats are inflated. The kid can straight out ball. He's gonna be the leader of that defense for years to come. However, high tackle numbers say more about his DTs and LBs. Luke nearly broke Willis' record because of the exact reason. Now that we acquired Star and Short, and Davis is 100%, Kuechly isn't putting up the type of tackling stats he showed off last season. That, and opposing offenses are game-planning around him.

As for Alonso, I wonder why Dareus and Williams aren't stuffing the run more.